Interactive Governance for Sustainable Resource Use and Environmental Management: A Case Study of Yaman ng Lawa Initiative in the Laguna Lake Watershed, Philippines

Abstract

This chapter deals with the watershed and water resource management of Laguna Lake in the Philippines. Laguna Lake is the largest freshwater lake in the Philippines and is located next to the capital, Metropolitan Manila. Due to urbanization and industrialization, the lake’s water quality is deteriorating, and water resource management is now urgently required. This chapter reviews the Philippines’ water governance and its history and framework and then examines the activities and roles of stakeholders for Laguna Lake. This chapter also focuses on the Laguna Lake Development Authority and the role of the Yaman ng Lawa Initiative in local community activities for managing and using the lake and its watersheds sustainably. This chapter discusses how community mechanisms can produce social capital by interactive governance in the lake basin.

Cramb, R.A. 2004, July. The Role of Social Capital in the Promotion of Conservation Farming: The Case of Landcare in the Southern Philippines. In 13th International Soil Conservation Organization (ISCO) Conference, Brisbane.Google Scholar

Goto, M. 2004 February. The Functions of Village Organization “Barangay” and Local Society of the Philippines: A Case Study of One Village of Laguna. Forum of International Development Study 25: 61–80. In Japanese.Google Scholar

Malayang, III, B. 2004. A Model of Water Governance in the Philippines. In Winning the Water War: Watersheds, Water Policies and Water Institutions, ed. Rola, A.C., Francisco, H., and Liguton, J.P.T., 59–83. Philippine Institute of Development Studies and Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development; Makati City, Philippines.Google Scholar

Rola, A.C., C.L. Abansib, R. Arcala-Hall, and J.C. Lizadad. 2016. Characterizing Local Water Governance Structure in the Philippines: Results of the Water Managers’ 2013 Survey. Water International 41 (2): 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar